The ironic thing about catty blogs
A week ago, David Goldstein provided a much needed takedown of unSoundPolitics' post-primary spin and fabrications in an entry titled "The truth about catty blogs".
As David succinctly pointed out, Stefan Sharkansky and his herd of pixel slingers have already foolishly squandered away their credibility with the press...and they have only themselves to blame. Liars and unscrupulous party hacks just don't make very credible political analysts (for obvious reasons).
In his critique, David responded to Stefan's gleeful mocking by pointing out that the attack had no factual basis whatsoever:
So where did Stefan Sharkansky and Eric Earling come up with the idea that David had made such a prediction?
Stefan could have misread what David wrote, but I find it hard to believe he could be that stupid. I'm inclined to think he blatantly lied just so he could have some hollow fun with his readers at David's expense. And Eric Earling then seemingly got the meme from Stefan, picking up on the fabrication in one of his own posts.
But what is absurdly ironic is that Stefan attempted to dishonestly mock David by pretending that David made a big, out-of-left-field political prediction...when, in fact, Stefan himself has made actual, significant predictions that turned out to be completely wrong.
For example...remember this? (Google it!)
He declared, with confidence, that he believed the gubernatorial election was going to be thrown out, and that Bridges would decimate the Democrats' case. But just the opposite happened, and before the day was over, Rossi had ended the challenge. (Stefan also predicted, by the way, that Rossi would win the gubernatorial election back in November 2004.).
And then yesterday, Stefan bemusedly attempted to snicker at Darcy Burner's campaign for sending out what he termed a "hilarious" email, which informed Seattle supporters that volunteer opportunities were available within the city limits. Stefan titled his post "Because that's where her supporters live" and added:
David Goldstein put it best - these posts are undoubtedly "typical of the kind of intellectually lazy rhetorical subterfuge that Stefan routinely passes off as fact." If Stefan doesn't want to be considered nothing more than an inane cog in the local Republican Noise Machine, he might want to start offering his readers some conjecture resembling real political analysis.
But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
As David succinctly pointed out, Stefan Sharkansky and his herd of pixel slingers have already foolishly squandered away their credibility with the press...and they have only themselves to blame. Liars and unscrupulous party hacks just don't make very credible political analysts (for obvious reasons).
In his critique, David responded to Stefan's gleeful mocking by pointing out that the attack had no factual basis whatsoever:
First there was Stefan’s dig…And indeed, if you go back and read through David's original, short post musing over the idea of Hastings facing a tough primary challenge, you'll notice that nowhere does he predict a victory for Claude Oliver. In fact, he explicitly stated, "Quite frankly, I find this [the idea of an Oliver victory] hard to believe".Goldstein’s other coup this week was to predicted [sic] that Doc Hastings would be defeated in the primary. (He won 77% to 23%). Keep up the good work, David. At this rate, soon you’ll be making Joni Balter look good!And then Stefan’s puppy Eric picks up on the meme, talking about how my “euphoria prompted some puzzling preening” about Hastings.
Only problem is, I never predicted Doc Hastings would be defeated. Never. Never ever.
So where did Stefan Sharkansky and Eric Earling come up with the idea that David had made such a prediction?
Stefan could have misread what David wrote, but I find it hard to believe he could be that stupid. I'm inclined to think he blatantly lied just so he could have some hollow fun with his readers at David's expense. And Eric Earling then seemingly got the meme from Stefan, picking up on the fabrication in one of his own posts.
But what is absurdly ironic is that Stefan attempted to dishonestly mock David by pretending that David made a big, out-of-left-field political prediction...when, in fact, Stefan himself has made actual, significant predictions that turned out to be completely wrong.
For example...remember this? (Google it!)
I rarely make predictions, but I feel comfortable predicting today that Judge Bridges will set aside the election.and this:
Stefan Sharkansky (May 29th, 2005)
He [Bridges] will either use the proportional analysis as proposed by the Republicans or punt on the issue by using an even more generous standard for tossing out illegal votes that will help the Republicans.Classic. Oh yeah...so, how'd that turn out for you, Stefan?
I believe the Democrats have little credibility with the judge on this issue, and only the Republicans have given him a practical (if imperfect) path for moving forward...
As I've mentioned before, I'm predicting that Judge Bridges will set aside the election.
- Stefan Sharkansky (June 4th, 2005 and June 5th, 2005)
Finally, with respect to proportional deduction, the Court concludes that an election such as this should not be overturned because one judge picks a number and applies a proportional deduction analysis.Stefan Sharkansky has absolutely no business laughing at anybody for making predictions (especially wrongfully attributed ones) given that he himself made what you might call the mother of all predictions last year.
To do so, within the context of the facts of this case, would constitute the ultimate act of judicial egotism and judicial activism which neither the voters for Mr. Rossi or for Ms. Gregoire should condone.
The Court concludes that mere voter crediting, without other evidence, is not sufficient to show that someone voted. The Court concludes that the election contest petition should be dismissed with prejudice and the certification of Ms. Gregoire as governor confirmed.
- Judge John Bridges, June 6th, 2005
He declared, with confidence, that he believed the gubernatorial election was going to be thrown out, and that Bridges would decimate the Democrats' case. But just the opposite happened, and before the day was over, Rossi had ended the challenge. (Stefan also predicted, by the way, that Rossi would win the gubernatorial election back in November 2004.).
And then yesterday, Stefan bemusedly attempted to snicker at Darcy Burner's campaign for sending out what he termed a "hilarious" email, which informed Seattle supporters that volunteer opportunities were available within the city limits. Stefan titled his post "Because that's where her supporters live" and added:
I guess Darcy has an easier time getting phone bank volunteers in Seattle than in her own district.That was dumb, of course, but amusingly, guess what the Reichert campaign has on the front page of its website this week...as the top headline?
REICHERT ENDORSED BY SEATTLE POLICE OFFICERS' GUILDObviously the Reichert campaign believes this out-of-the-district endorsement is hugely important...it's front and center on their website, and it was clearly a news release as well. So, following Stefan's logic - this is a big deal because Seattle is where Dave Reichert's supporters live.
Unusual step for Seattle Guild - eighth first responder group to endorse Reichert
Taking the unusual step of endorsing a political candidate outside their jurisdiction, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild has endorsed Congressman Dave Reichert for reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington's Eighth Congressional District.
David Goldstein put it best - these posts are undoubtedly "typical of the kind of intellectually lazy rhetorical subterfuge that Stefan routinely passes off as fact." If Stefan doesn't want to be considered nothing more than an inane cog in the local Republican Noise Machine, he might want to start offering his readers some conjecture resembling real political analysis.
But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
